Sugasawara

Sugasawara v. Newland

Bad Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 805·27 Cal. App. 4th 294·32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 484·94 Daily Journal DAR 10904·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6010
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 3, 1994B076600California987 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

SUGASAWARA V. HAYASHI CORPORATION

This is an appeal from an order vacating an entry of default. The order was made pursuant to section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Appellants contend that the motion to vacate came after the six-month period recognized by section 473. They base their argument on the claim that the period runs from the entry of default. We do not agree. The plain language of section 473 makes it clear that the six-month period starts to run from the entry of judgment. In addition, section 473 requires the court to vacate the underlying default upon vacating the default judgment as a result of attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. Finding no judicial error, we shall affirm the order.

Factual and Procedural Summary

On April 17, 1990, appellants Jim Y. and Chizu Sagasawara filed a complaint against respondents Jeffrey M. Newland and Kenneth S. Hayashi Corporation for fraud, rescission, restitution, and injunction. Newland is a former employee of Hayashi Corporation, a real estate brokerage company which handled the appellants’ real estate transaction. Hayashi Corporation filed for bankruptcy protection in May 1991. After appellants…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.